ArticleJournal of neurosurgery2024
Dissecting patterns and predictors of interhospital transfers for patients with brain metastasis.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Hospital Connectedness in Brain Metastasis Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInterhospital transfers in the acute setting may contribute to high cost, patient inconvenience, and delayed treatment. The authors sought to understand patterns and predictors in the transfer of brain metastasis patients after emergency department (ED) encounter.
methodsThe authors analyzed 3037 patients with brain metastasis who presented to the ED in Massachusetts and were included in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Emergency Department Database in 2018 and 2019.
resultsThe authors found that 6.9% of brain metastasis patients who presented to the ED were transferred to another facility, either directly or indirectly after admission. The sending EDs were more likely to be nonteaching hospitals without neurosurgery and radiation oncology services (p < 0.01). Transferred patients were more likely to present with neurological symptoms compared to those admitted or discharged (p < 0.01). Among those transferred, approximately 30% did not undergo a significant procedure after transfer and approximately 10% were discharged within 3 days, in addition to not undergoing significant interventions. In total, 74% of transferred patients were sent to a facility significantly farther (> 3 miles) than the nearest facility with neurosurgery and radiation oncology services. Further distance transfers were not associated with improvements in 30-day readmission rate (OR [95% CI] 0.64 [0.30-1.34] for 15-30 miles; OR [95% CI] 0.73 [0.37-1.46] for > 30 miles), 90-day readmission rate (OR [95% CI] 0.50 [0.18-1.28] for 15-30 miles; OR [95% CI] 0.53 [0.18-1.51] for > 30 miles), and length of stay (OR [95% CI] 1.21 days [0.94-1.29] for both 15-30 miles and > 30 miles) compared to close-distance transfers.
conclusionsThe authors identified a notable proportion of transfers without subsequent significant intervention or appreciable medical management. This may reflect ED physician discomfort with the neurological symptoms of brain metastasis. Many patients were also transferred to hospitals distant from their point of origin and demonstrated no differences in readmission rates and length of stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.